Abstract
BACKGROUND: Daratumumab (a human CD38-directed monoclonal antibody) and pomalidomide (an immunomodulatory drug) plus dexamethasone are both relatively new treatment options for patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma. A matching adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was used to compare absolute treatment effects of daratumumab versus pomalidomide + low-dose dexamethasone (LoDex; 40 mg) on overall survival (OS), while adjusting for differences between the trial populations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The MAIC method reduces the risk of bias associated with naïve indirect comparisons. Data from 148 patients receiving daratumumab (16 mg/kg), pooled from the GEN501 and SIRIUS studies, were compared separately with data from patients receiving pomalidomide + LoDex in the MM-003 and STRATUS studies. RESULTS: The MAIC-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for OS of daratumumab versus pomalidomide + LoDex was 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-0.83; p = .0041) for MM-003 and 0.51 (95% CI, 0.37-0.69; p < .0001) for STRATUS. The treatment benefit was even more pronounced when the daratumumab population was restricted to pomalidomide-naïve patients (MM-003: HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.17-0.66; p = .0017; STRATUS: HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.21-0.79; p = .0082). An additional analysis indicated a consistent trend of the OS benefit across subgroups based on M-protein level reduction (≥50%, ≥25%, and <25%). CONCLUSION: The MAIC results suggest that daratumumab improves OS compared with pomalidomide + LoDex in patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This matching adjusted indirect comparison of clinical trial data from four studies analyzes the survival outcomes of patients with heavily pretreated, relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who received either daratumumab monotherapy or pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone. Using this method, daratumumab conferred a significant overall survival benefit compared with pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone. In the absence of head-to-head trials, these indirect comparisons provide useful insights to clinicians and reimbursement authorities around the relative efficacy of treatments.